It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

page: 27
34
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Just a friendly PSA.

Let's not start any witch hunts by unnecessarily posting private citizens personal info.


Thanks




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Bigotry and racism will always be with us. Watch the animals and the children. If there is an off color animal in a herd, that animal is ostracized. If there is one red headed child in the first grade among hispanics, that child is picked on. If there is only one "white" family in the neighborhood, that family has a target on its back. Anything that is different will call on others to set it up for mistreatment. Look what happens when there is one Jew in a nation of Muslims.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan
The officer made the mistake of speaking too loudly. His thoughts are to be protected (so far), and his speech likewise protected in the ‘privacy' of his home or any other other space owned by him - his car, etc Note: he could have been asked to leave even a friends private home if the friend objected to the officer’s racist language. So, in a restaurant serving the public, he made a big mistake speaking out loud or too loud because he was representing and speaking for the LAW. He should have simply apologized and then, finally, shut up about it.

edit on 17-5-2014 by havanaja because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
what is the intent of laws against hate speech?


No one is legally charging this man with hate speech. The law is not involved. Legal hate speech is not relevant to this discussion or to this case. But since you don't have the time or motivation to look it up for yourself, here is the answer to your question.

Hate Speech



In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.


I repeat: NO legal action is being taken against this man. His first amendment rights are intact.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.


This is where the argument springs a leak. Either it is a racial slur because he is black, in which case- it's a hate crime as he is from a protected group - or it's not a racial slur because he is not black, in which case it's evidence of hate, which is only lacking the additional title of crime because there are currently no laws protecting people who are only partially black.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
The Cop is just dumb. He will be held accountable by the voters.

What is interesting to me is this woman. Is she still a Private Citizen ?

She created a Nationwide Story and publicly comments on the Cop.

Does she still deserve the protection of a Private Citizen.

Or did her actions thrust her into the catagory of Public Figure ?

Just curious where that line is.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I see you are still coming from a place of ignorance on this topic. No one is being fined, imprisoned, or arrested for this. No such laws exist.

Not sure where you are from, but we have a constitution in america that ensures that.


Ok, so there are no hate speech laws in the US? That's odd, I just did a search HERE and a load information comes up. I guess the search engines like DuckDuckGo which gets its search information from Google must be ignorant too? Go figure...

Cheers - Dave
please. Seriously. Read about the topic. I beg you.

It is impossible to debate this when people havent even bothered to read the details of the case. I still fail to understand why so many of you defending this are the same ones who dont know where it took place, the details surrounding it, etc.

No one here is being charged with anything. That means....wait for it.....your entire post is irrelevant!


And my purpose for responding to this thread, even though I feel there is vast gap (lack of equality) in the way purveyors of "hate speech" are dealt with by the rabid PC's is that this subject is totally irrelevant in the face of the greater problems within the US and most other countries. The US is falling apart economically, 50 million on food stamps and/or some form of social assistance, politicians/public "servants" in contempt of congress, a POTUS that is circumventing the constitution, the NSA taking privacy away, the TSA and DHS overstepping, warrantless searches and siezures and yet because one person, says one "wrong" word (which under the first amendment is allegedly still his right), the lot of you get all bent out of shape to the tune of 27 pages.

On Hate Crime Legislation in the US, I quickly grabbed the Mathew Shepard Act;


The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, is an American Act of Congress, passed on October 22, 2009, and signed into law by President Barack Obama on October 28, 2009, as a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010.


Another Link

Divide and conquer, it's a game that's been played for more than a 1000 years and apparently, it's still working.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 5/17.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

I agree with ya whitee! Or is it honkey? Or Cracker? All those words can describe a pink person without a problem. This is leading to a thought police mentality and people have a right to private conversations, thoughts, opinions and choice of language.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: kruphix
He has a right to his private conversation...but he doesn't have immunity to consequences.

If there are 'consequences' then his right to a private conversation was taken away. The waitress is going around repeating conversations she over hears her customers having. That's not exactly a good work ethic for her to have. People expect to be able to be served in a restaurant without the waitress-police repeating their private conversations. I wouldn't be surprised if the business at the restaurant suffers because of this. Who wants to go eat someplace where the wait staff won't mind their own business and just do their job?

You're right that there are consequences to everyones actions but lets get real, the PC BS is getting way out of hand. Just because someone actually uses the 'N' word doesn't mean they are racist! What would we be saying if the waitress had overheard two men plotting to kill someone else. Would we then want her to be listening in and report to the police? It is a difficult question to answer and there is no 'one fits all' rule to go by.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
Either it is a racial slur because he is black, in which case- it's a hate crime as he is from a protected group - or it's not a racial slur because he is not black, in which case it's evidence of hate, which is only lacking the additional title of crime because there are currently no laws protecting people who are only partially black.


There is nothing in the law that states a person must be 100% black to be the victim of hate crime. Obama identifies as black. Therefore, he is black. His father is from Kenya, for God's sake. VERY few black people in the US are 100% black. It's a stupid, stupid argument.

Again, this is not about a crime. No one has been charged with a crime. Your argument is simply an attempt to side-step the issue and this is my last post on that subject. If you want information on hate crimes or who is the rightful victim of a hate crime, look it up yourself.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

we are all out of africa. so we are all part black. therefore, we are all protected under hate speech laws and should all be protected individuals. according to evolution, we are all descendants of the first black humans.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: antar

The difference is, slurs such as "honky", "whitey" and "cracker" don't refer to someone who was once thought of as a sub-human animal species incapable of critical thought, morality and human dignity, was sold for profit, kept in chains, beaten and raped into submission and forced into hard labor to the benefit of honkies, whities and crackers.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




forced into hard labor to the benefit of honkies, whities and crackers.


and to benefit other blacks, arabs, jews, and every other group at the time (including pagans of various stripe), who were involved in the slave trade. ignoring history will not make it go away.
edit on 17-5-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: windword




forced into hard labor to the benefit of honkies, whities and crackers.


and to benefit other blacks, arabs, jews, and every other group at the time (including pagans of various stripe), who were involved in the slave trade. ignoring history will not make it go away.
im confused, are you saying that, since it wasnt only white people partaking in the slave trade, that it was ok?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
A quick note to all of those talking about 'thought police'. If this was just a thought, no one would know about it. That we know about it, means that its no longer just a thought.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
I read it. Youre a non american who doesnt even know the simple details of this case but saw it as a chance to jump in and talk trash about the u.s.

Its pretty clear.


Yes, I am from that failed social experiment called Canadakastan on your northern border, oh noos, I must be incapable of looking at this situation because I am not in the US. Don't be so ridiculous, the laws on hate speech are on the internet at .gov sites for the US. Everything I said was true and now, in atypical PC fashion it's time to attack the messenger rather than the message, you seem to be trying to shift some sort of blame or attention to me or discredit because of my opinions. Play the ball, not the player ;-)

Although the police commissioner's verbalized opinion was "possibly" inappropriate, he should have a 1st amendment right to speak his mind, privately or publicly. The waitress, rather than being a busy body should have simply ignored the opinion as it is none of her business. Personally, I would have fired her on the spot for being a busy body.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 5/17.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

It doesn't matter what other countries and cultures also benefited from the slave trade. We're here in America talking about what the American term "#ing #ger" refers to, especially coming from the mouth of an elected law enforcement official who is talking about the elected occupant of highest office of our nation.

There is no way that this isn't an ignorant racial slur. I think you're the one denying history.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join